The Bharatiya Janata Party on Monday insisted that the government revert to the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology that examined the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, without mentioning “and” and “intent” in the controversial Clause 17.

The Bharatiya Janata Party on Monday insisted that the government revert to the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology that examined the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, without mentioning “and” and “intent” in the controversial Clause 17.

The opposition party's view was conveyed to Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan, who met Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley and Deputy Leader S.S. Ahluwalia in a bid to break the deadlock over the bill.

“We have conveyed to the government that without mentioning ‘and' and ‘intent', the Standing Committee report is fine,” Mr. Jaitley told journalists. The party was not agreeable to any dilution of the supplier's liability in the event of a nuclear catastrophe.

“Very difficult”

Earlier, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, who was a member of the Standing Committee, told journalists it would be “very difficult” for the BJP to support the bill unless the government relented and went back to the language recommended in the report. Besides strengthening supplier liability, the report proposed a number of amendments, including raising the cap on the nuclear operator's liability to Rs. 1,500 crore.

“Why is the government playing hide-and-seek? What is the government's intent over ‘intent', we will question the government's intent. Why is the government trying to hoodwink the nation and mislead the people on the nuclear bill? We have major reservations about ‘intent'' and ‘wilful.' We, in the Standing Committee, succeeded in coming up with proposals which are India-centric and which protect the interests of the people of this country; if the government wants to puncture it, then it would be very difficult for the BJP to support it,” Mr. Rudy said.

1500 cr liability...

If a nuclear catastrophe occurs 10 years from now... wouldn't 1500 cr be a paltry sum... Due to inflation.. isn't there a provision in the bill to account for inflation...?

from:
rony

Posted on: Aug 25, 2010 at 10:46 IST

KUDOS BJP ...for once i happen to agree with BJP ...Yay!

from:
Viks

Posted on: Aug 23, 2010 at 23:58 IST

Manmohan Singh and the Congress party seek to protect foreign suppliers from liability in case of a Nuclear accident. An attempt is being made to shift liability and therefore blame on the plant operator who are obviously Indian. Further there is an attempt to portray Nuclear Energy as "Clean" even though one cannot walk away from a scrapped nuclear power plant or nuclear waste, which cost must be built into the cost of the plant.

The NPCIL has stated -"No supplier, Indian or foreign would be willing to take the liability on account of recourse of the operator for the period of some 80 odd years after the contract is executed.-

Considering that the Indian Dept of Atomic Energy does not have the knowledge to decide about what could be the best design for fail safe and secure operation of a Nuclear Power Plant of different designs from different countries, each with its own set of variables, India runs the risk of being supplied plants of inferior designs as well as inferior systems for fail safe operation.

The Indian operator is unlikely to know all the variables of all the designs. Further improvement of systems could take place, yes, after several years of operating experience. But till such time the Indian operator masters the different technologies offered by each country India runs an excessive risk in the operation of the plant.

The natural choice of the supplier would be to supply a design based on the lowest cost. It is nobody's case that an imported nuclear power plant produces power at a price cheaper than a coal fired plant. The Indian Govt is likely to be under pressure to control costs to ensure a low cost of the electricity generated. Wherein lies the risk leading to a nuclear catastrophe.

from:
Shreeram

Posted on: Aug 23, 2010 at 23:11 IST

If only the standing committee would ask itself the following question and introspect,

"Do we really require a law, to take a course of action against who willfully and intentionally perpetrate a nuclear disaster."

In a future nuclear accident, if the foreign suppliers could be let-off because it was not willfully or intentionally caused, then I guess the verdict of 2 years imprisonment for the perpetrators in Bopal gas tragedy is too high a punishment because "a chemical disaster" is too less in magnitude compared to a nuclear disaster, and of course it was not a "willful" or "intentional" act.

from:
Senthil Kumar .A

Posted on: Aug 23, 2010 at 22:56 IST

If unlimited liability is the order of the day even for motor accidents cases, then why should nuclear accidents (or incidents) be excepted from that? What is the position of law in United States and United Kingdom in such circumstances needs to be found out and revealed by The Hindu so that people can see if there are any deliberate mala fide concessions made by the GOI in this regard.